On Tuesday, we may have gotten a glimpse into the strategy of the NHL Players’ Association as they negotiate the next collective bargaining agreement with the league.

For some time now, Yahoo’s Puck Daddy blog has been publishing occasional pieces by a current NHL player. The pieces are published anonymously and provide a window into life as a player in the world’s best hockey league.

On Tuesday, “The Player” (the nom de plume of our anonymous NHL’er) published a piece on the collective bargaining process. While it is undeniably written from a pro-union perspective, the piece is accurate and largely a reasonable take on the ongoing talks. Unsurprisingly, the primary issue identified in that piece on the ownership side is that “increases in revenue haven’t been evenly distributed, making it increasingly difficult for [low-budget teams] to spend even to the [salary cap] floor.”

Back in June, I wrote a post on this very issue. The full post is here, but in brief I identified four potential ways to remedy the problem:

– Relocate teams that are in weak markets

– Expand revenue sharing

– Reduce the players’ percentage of revenues

– Raise the cap ceiling, lower the cap floor

My conclusion at the time?

“[T]he fourth solution is the only one on this list that works for all parties, and it’s one I’d be shocked not to see in the next CBA, probably in concert with a reduction in the players’ share, and perhaps with a slight increase in revenue sharing.”

My expectation was that the players’ association would push for the fourth solution because despite the loss of parity it would appeal both to small-market teams (who want to spend less) and big-budget teams (who often want to spend whatever it takes to land star players). If the Puck Daddy piece reflects the NHLPA consensus, however, they will also be pushing for expanded revenue sharing. After detailing some of the (myriad) problems with the current revenue-sharing setup, The Player writes:

“The point is that it must be a difficult system under which to run a business. Going forward revenue sharing needs to be much simpler, much more predictable, and more meaningful. If, collectively, we need to support some of the struggling franchises, then the League needs to take on a greater share of the responsibility. It can not all be left up to the players once more.”

There are of course good reasons to expand revenue sharing – not only does it increase franchise stability by ensuring the wealth is spread more evenly, but it also incentives owners to do all they can to grow the game as a whole rather than to focus solely on their individual clubs (it’s also the sort of thing that puts pressure on owners to only allow teams in cities where they’ll make money).

It’s also a not-bad play from a strategic standpoint. The last lockout demonstrated that the NHLPA is not strong enough to stand up to a unified ownership front; therefore a desirable consequence of any negotiating strategy is a divided ownership. Even better is one that puts the majority of the owners on-side with the union. Does expanded revenue sharing do that?

It does. The reason is that (as far as we can tell) only a few teams are making money hand-over-fist; the majority of clubs are hovering around the break-even point.

According to Forbes, three teams in the league have an operating income in excess of $40 million per year. Three others (including the supposedly small-market Edmonton Oilers) are in double digits. On the other hand, 22 NHL teams have an operating income of $5 million per year or lower; 20 of those find themselves somewhere between $5 million in the black and $10 million in the red.

If Forbes figures are even close to accurate, that means that there are a handful of super-rich teams in the NHL, and a whole bunch of teams not nearly so well off. It only seems logical that the owners of the not-so-rich teams would largely be in favour of any refinements that redistribute the flow of cash more evenly.

Naturally, the comments of one player do not necessarily reflect the negotiating strategy of the entire NHLPA, but this emphasis on revenue sharing does seem like a sensible battle plan for the players’ association.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Market to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.